this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
437 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

73450 readers
5024 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 72 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Blows my mind that anyone still uses WinRAR when 7zip exists.

[–] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

WinRAR was good in ancient times when it was the only zip program available. Even in the Windows XP era there were better things to use if you knew about them. I doubt 7zip was really that usable in the early 2000s but it eventually got good and nowadays 7zip is so good that of you aren't using it, you're doing it wrong.

[–] gothicdecadence@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

If you're on Windows (I know I know, switch to Linux) I prefer NanaZip over base 7zip

https://github.com/M2Team/NanaZip

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why not? I prefer it over 7-Zip because it has built-in parity both in the archive itself and as separate files. You can achieve the latter with 7-Zip using PAR, but it's just more convenient to have it built-in for both parity creation and recovery.

I also feel like it's consuming a lot less RAM while compressing at similar speeds and achieving similar, if not sometimes better (RAR5), results.

Just because it had a zero-day bug that has already been fixed doesn't mean it's bad software. I wouldn't be surprised if zero-days came to light in other archival software. 7-Zip isn't magically immune to this.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't get why someone would prefer rar over zip and 7z.
Even tar.gz and all their flavors are more common.

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, well technically .cab is more common than tar.gz but that doesn't mean I'd start using it.

I personally use RAR because I think it's a better format than ZIP, but I use ZIP when I have to share the archive with anyone.

[–] youstolemyname@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How does it compare to 7z (the file format) though?

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

According to this benchmark, 7z compression is better.

https://peazip.github.io/peazip-compression-benchmark.html

[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

WinRAR also has clever password and encryption features. (Set short master password, quickly encrypt/decrypt any saved very long passwords.) Integration is great. Updates are regular. I only wish the UI would be updated a bit (more than just icon packs, dark mode).

[–] ARk@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well it would blow your mind to know that many people just use whatever they know that does the job

[–] Kyoyeou@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago

There is a certain sense of old friend that you know by heart, I've downloaded so much things where the last step was to pass it by WinRAR, but yeah I should change when there are proofs like that

[–] original_reader@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago

There's the occasional RAR archive 7-Zip doesn't open for me, but WinRAR does. 🤷🏻